Re: Do philosophical theories
My views may harm the interests of those who want to harm society by indulging in their own selfish desires ... But ultimately my views are a sympathetic view towards those people not one of contempt ... And you get no bonus marks for rearranging what I write and saying it back to me ... It sounds absurd like you are arguing for the sake of it ...without making your own case.
you haven't yet explained how homosexuality is harming the society.
Re: Do philosophical theories
I other words homosexual act is as abominable as heterosexual act without intent to procreate?
OK. Crystal clear.
Good point.
using that logic sex b/w heterosexuals with using birth control IS an abomination as well.
right or wrong?
Re: Do philosophical theories
My views may harm the interests of those who want to harm society by indulging in their own selfish desires ... But ultimately my views are a sympathetic view towards those people not one of contempt ... And you get no bonus marks for rearranging what I write and saying it back to me ... It sounds absurd like you are arguing for the sake of it ...without making your own case.
See that's the thing. Whatever close minded views u expressed abt others can easily be expressed abt u. Cause all u state r opinions. From decent people's perspective such opinions are repugnant. So I used ur words on u. To let u know how it feels. That's all.
I have made my point. I don't expect to change ur mind. That wasn't the intent anyway.
Re: Do philosophical theories
Good point. using that logic sex b/w heterosexuals with using birth control IS an abomination as well. right or wrong?
Right.
Re: Do philosophical theories
I did not mean in that regard.
I wanted to make a point that these days and age anything can be made to look like acceptable by gullible people by using the magic words like… abuse, victim,… without going in to further detail.
Bestiality cannot be considered abuse of animals out-rightly,.. if animal is not really harmed.
Re: Do philosophical theories
Again: I am not in supporting bestiality. All I wanted that to negate the victim factor to be considered as a reason for it to be considered wrong.
Homosexuals are sick and for them it does not matter if having sex with same sex person is right or wrong, they just think it is right thing to do.
Same goes with those who do sex with animal or a child.
Re: Do philosophical theories
I am sure in this static there is some learning involved.
[TABLE=“class: wikitable”]
[TH]Rank[/TH] [TH="align: center"]City[/TH] [TH]Percentage of city population[/TH] [TH="colspan: 2"]GLB Population [/TH][TH]population[/TH]
[TH]rank[/TH]
1
New York City
6%
272,493
1
2
Los Angeles
5.6%
154,270
2
3
Chicago
5.7%
114,449
3
4
San Francisco
15.4%
94,234
4
5
Phoenix
6.4%
63,222
5
6
Houston
4.4%
61,976
6
7
San Diego
6.8%
61,945
7
8
Dallas
7.0%
58,473
8
9
Seattle
12.9%
57,993
9
10
Boston
12.3%
50,540
10
11
Philadelphia
4.2%
43,320
11
12
Atlanta
12.8%
39,085
12
13
San Jose
5.8%
37,260
13
When we became human form monkeys, we had to unlearn many bad, bad things(post 239). Things we proudly don’t own no more.
So we clearly learned it to the point that it became our nature. NOT made --but learned.
Now who is to say that after gay crusaders are done, half of the worlds population would not learn some thing new again ??
After all only one out or 8.7 billion species, who are capable to learn to that degree ?? heen ??
Re: Do philosophical theories
No matter how hilarious those appear to you, you cannot refute any of my arguments.
1- I used majority AND whoever has strongest argument in my sentence. Read my sentence again.
You deliberately picked up majority (and skipped the part where I said whoever has strongest argument) and ran with it for several of your illogical arguments.
2- You are trying hard to talk about religion(s) and I have avoided using any religion to support my position. I said I do not need religion to negate homosexuality.
3- Despite you have been given answers multiple times about your comments on oral sex, birth control you keep coming up with same arguments, showing you just want to argue for argument sake.
Read the posts of mine before making senseless comments.
Re: Do philosophical theories
I other words homosexual act is as abominable as heterosexual act without intent to procreate?
OK. Crystal clear.
That is your conclusion ... Homosexual acts are a deeper psychosis ... And the psychosis exists in animals too ... Heterosexuality is the nominal state in sexual reproductive organisms ... Yes self or the sake of sex is a nature within us but it needs to be curtailed ... Somewhere between celibacy and sexual freedom.
Re: Do philosophical theories
Good point. using that logic sex b/w heterosexuals with using birth control IS an abomination as well. right or wrong?
It is less controversial but still so ... Yes
Re: Do philosophical theories
See that's the thing. Whatever close minded views u expressed abt others can easily be expressed abt u. Cause all u state r opinions. From decent people's perspective such opinions are repugnant. So I used ur words on u. To let u know how it feels. That's all.
I have made my point. I don't expect to change ur mind. That wasn't the intent anyway.
I was not giving a mere opinion ... I presented my case first ... Your case is flawed as Monk repeatedly is demonstrating ... Mine is consistent.
Re: Do philosophical theories
For something to be taken from the animal world as evidence to do something then first of all one needs to determine the apparent benefits in doing so, secondly one needs to assess how common these things really are and whether the animals exhibiting these things are not themselves acting abnormally ... Animals don't have higher cognitive abilities to discern and make sense of things ... But humans do ... We have no excuse to mindlessly imitate others humans or animals or conform to our urges without arriving at a criteria for right and wrong actions ... This is what philosophy is all about ... While we have been presenting philosophical arguments the counter position has repeatedly been giving behavioural trends as if that is benchmark ... That is merely scientific observation it cannot provide us a basis for right and wrong ... But philosophy can ...
the false argument about gays being treated with contempt is also being presented ... As I said nymphomaniacs and homosexuals are in the same class for me ... Sexual deviants and all of them deserve sympathy and compassion and not hatred ... But those who wish to make the practice of sexual deviancy as an acceptable life style choice... That is worth condemning ...
Re: Do philosophical theories
I was not giving a mere opinion ... I presented my case first ... Your case is flawed as Monk repeatedly is demonstrating ... Mine is consistent.
You presented your case. I presented mine. Just because another person (Monk in this case) posts something that may or may not support ur position or shows my position to be flawed) doesn't mean it is true. You can delude yourself into thinking my position is flawed and you have made ur case. As I stated clearly I have no intention of changing ur mind. Reasonable folks will come to their own conclusions after reading the exchange.
Re: Do philosophical theories
That is your conclusion ... Homosexual acts are a deeper psychosis ... And the psychosis exists in animals too ... Heterosexuality is the nominal state in sexual reproductive organisms ... Yes self or the sake of sex is a nature within us but it needs to be curtailed ... Somewhere between celibacy and sexual freedom.
Your position is flawed as demonstrated by another poster. Whereas I have presented my case.
Re: Do philosophical theories
No matter how hilarious those appear to you, you cannot refute any of my arguments.
1- I used majority AND whoever has strongest argument in my sentence. Read my sentence again.
You deliberately picked up majority (and skipped the part where I said whoever has strongest argument) and ran with it for several of your illogical arguments.
your argument makes no sense i am afraid. all you do is keep comparing it to pedophila. not a good example at all.
[quote]
2- You are trying hard to talk about religion(s) and I have avoided using any religion to support my position. I said I do not need religion to negate homosexuality.
[/quote]
other than religion, there is no reason to object to homosexuality.
[quote]
3- Despite you have been given answers multiple times about your comments on oral sex, birth control you keep coming up with same arguments, showing you just want to argue for argument sake.
[/quote]
because you keep bringing up same illogical nonsense reasoning saying how pleasure shouldn't be the reason for sex while thats exactly the reason why people have sex.
Re: Do philosophical theories
It is less controversial but still so ... Yes
so you agree that birthcontrol is somewhat similar to homosexuality as both lead to 'non reproductive' sex and both should be condemned?
if you view both as being unnatural and wrong, then you're being honest at least.
Re: Do philosophical theories
so you agree that birthcontrol is somewhat similar to homosexuality as both lead to 'non reproductive' sex and both should be condemned? if you view both as being unnatural and wrong, then you're being honest at least.
Much obliged ... For me consistency in applied principles is the route to truth and goodness ... So I simply cannot deny the philosophical similarity between these two ... However the degree to which they are controversial is different ...
Re: Do philosophical theories
Again: I am not in supporting bestiality. All I wanted that to negate the victim factor to be considered as a reason for it to be considered wrong.
Homosexuals are sick and for them it does not matter if having sex with same sex person is right or wrong, they just think it is right thing to do.
Same goes with those who do sex with animal or a child.
animal cannot consent, very simply. if you cannot even understand that, then no one can help you. before you bring up another bs argument that animal doesn't conset to killing it either, you should know, there are laws that protect animals. using it for food and skin is not the same as abuse according to law. secondly, why should an animal suffer to please a human? why should humans be allowed to transmit disease to an animal? and there is no evidence that it wont cause pain in the animal, it very well can. how do you know bestiality causes no harm?? it most certainly can. ofcourse there is a reason why bestiality is illegal in most places but homosexuality is legal in almost all secular countries.i wonder why that is..
Re: Do philosophical theories
Much obliged ... For me consistency in applied principles is the route to truth and goodness ... So I simply cannot deny the philosophical similarity between these two ... However the degree to which they are controversial is different ...
I honestly appreciate this answer very much.
you're honest and consistent in your reasoning and I respect that despite our disagreement.
Re: Do philosophical theories
animal cannot consent, very simply. if you cannot even understand that, then no one can help you. before you bring up another bs argument that animal doesn't conset to killing it either, you should know, there are laws that protect animals. using it for food and skin is not the same as abuse according to law. secondly, why should an animal suffer to please a human? why should humans be allowed to transmit disease to an animal? and there is no evidence that it wont cause pain in the animal, it very well can. how do you know bestiality causes no harm?? it most certainly can. ofcourse there is a reason why bestiality is illegal in most places but homosexuality is legal in almost all secular countries.i wonder why that is..
Peace bella88
My friend had a dog and whenever his aunt came around he told us that he would hump her leg ... I think certain animals are up for it ... You give half a chance to some apes or pigs and I'm sure they won't just not refuse they will take the lead ...
I randomly did a check on youtube and sure enough there are loads of videos there ... I didn't want to paste them here of (horny dogs humping legs)...
Apparently is is not homosexuality even females will hump sometimes, whatever it is ... It is not human like ... It should not emulated by us.